Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. GERRY CUENCA Y MEDRANO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR Nos. 140514-15 2003-09-30	PEOPLE v. JUNE IGNAS Y SANGGINO QUISUMBING, J.
Prosecution's evidence here is admittedly circumstantial. But in the absence of an eyewitness, reliance on circumstantial evidence is inevitable.[100] Resort thereto is essential when the lack of direct evidence would result in setting a felon free.[101]
	GR No. 140402 2003-01-28	PEOPLE v. ERASTO ACOSTA CARPIO, J.
Although the testimony of Rodrigo dela Cruz is uncorroborated by another eyewitness, it is no less trustworthy. The Court has ruled in a number of cases that the testimony of a single witness, if credible and positive, is sufficient for conviction because truth is established not by the quantity, but by the quality of the evidence.[39]
	GR No. 140402 2003-01-28	PEOPLE v. ERASTO ACOSTA CARPIO, J.
The trial court correctly ruled that conspiracy was present in the instant case. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement and decide on the commission of a felony.[65] While direct evidence is not necessary, conspiracy may be inferred from and proven by the acts of the accused themselves when the acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest.[66] In this case, prosecution witness Rodrigo dela Cruz saw appellants Arnold Acosta, Richard Acosta, Erasto Acosta, Sr. and Carlo Acosta physically assaulting Nestor. Arnold struck Nestor on the head with a piece of wood, then Avelino hit him with a pipe on the left side of his forehead. When Nestor fell down, Rosendo thrust an icepick on the left side of his body. Sigfredo Acosta also hit the left side of Nestor's body with a bamboo pole. Then Erasto, Sr. uttered, "Are you sure that he is dead?" Erasto, Sr. told his sons to bring the victim's body to the road. Clearly, the appellants were united in the execution of a common criminal design showing the presence of conspiracy. Where conspiracy is established, the act of one is the act of all.[67] All the conspirators are liable as co-principals.[68]
	GR No. 146100 2002-11-13	PEOPLE v. JOHNNY LOTERONO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
proof to justify an award as it is, at best, self-serving. While there was additional testimonial evidence by the victim's mother on his income,[79] the same can no longer serve as basis for lost earnings, in the light of our recent ruling in People v. Panabang,[80] and reiterated in People v. Cuenca.[81] There we held that indemnification for loss of earning capacity partakes of the nature of actual damages which must be duly proven; and a self-serving statement, being unreliable, is not enough. For lost income to be recovered, there must be an unbiased proof of the deceased's average, not just gross income.[82] WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 23 is MODIFIED as follows: 1.] Accused-appellant is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of Homicide as defined and penalized in Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of Ten (10) Years and One (1) Day of Prision Mayor, as
	GR No. 146687 2002-08-22	PEOPLE v. BONNIE R. RABANAL YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
the light of our recent ruling in People v. Panabang,[57] and reiterated in People v. Cuenca.[58] There we held that indemnification for loss of earning capacity partakes of the nature of actual damages which must be duly proven; and a self-serving statement, being unreliable, is not enough. For lost income to be recovered, there must be an unbiased proof of the deceased's average, not just gross, income. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City, Branch 44, in Criminal Case No. 96-01443-D is MODIFIED. Accused-appellant Bonnie R. Rabanal is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Homicide and is sentenced to
	GR No. L-146308 2002-07-18	PEOPLE v. SIXTO PARAGAS Y DELA CRUZ PANGANIBAN, J.
crime, it must be established and proven beyond reasonable doubt.[63] There is no necessity for direct proof that the co-conspirators had a prior agreement to commit the crime; proof that they acted in concert to pursue the same objective is sufficient.[64] Thus, criminal conspiracy must be founded on facts, not on mere surmises or conjectures.[65] In the instant case, as correctly found by the RTC, the prosecution was able to show that appellants had conspired to kill the victim,[66] as shown by the following facts: "First, Sixto glanced at Amado and the two nodded at each other before Sixto stabbed the victim. Second, Amado immediately and successfully prevented the other passengers from pursuing Sixto by volunteering to go after Sixto instead. Third, Mr. Venturado characterized the
	GR No. 126146 2002-03-12	PEOPLE v. JEMREICH MATIGNAS Y SAN PASCUAL PANGANIBAN, J.
Circumstantial evidence is defined as "that which indirectly proves a fact in issue an inference which the factfinder draws from the evidence established. Resort thereto is essential when the lack of direct testimony would result in setting a felon free."[24]